25. The Respondent further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner were decided per-incurium various decisions of the superior courts and failed to take into account the concept of exhaustion of statutory remedies. 26. The issues for determination in this Petition are as follows:i. Whether Petitioner’s fundamental rights to privacy and human dignity have been violated by publishing his image without his Express Consent. ii. Whether the Petitioner’s intellectual property rights were infringed by so doing. iii. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to injunctive Orders. iv. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to damages. 27. On the issue as to whether Petitioner’s fundamental rights to privacy and human dignity have been violated by publishing his image without his Express Consent, I nd that the answer is in the armative since the Express Authority of the Petitioner was required. 28. In Jessicar Clarise Wanjiru vs Davinci Aesthetics & Reconstruction Centre & 2 Others [2017]eKLR Nairobi Constitutional Petition 410 of 2016, it was held that; The right to privacy is guaranteed under Article 31 of the Constitution of Kenya, privacy has been dened as ‘the right of the individual to be protected against intrusion into his personal life or aairs, or those of his family, by direct physical means or by publication of information. In the above sense any intrusion of personal life by whatever means or form such as photography, written articles or caricatures may be ground for an action for breach of privacy. 29. In T.O.S v Maseno University & 3 Others [2016] eKLR Kisumu Petition 7 of 2015, it was held that; From the above reasoning and expositions of the law it is clear that publication or use of the images of an individual without his consent violates that person’s right to privacy. I say so because a person's life is a restricted realm in which only that individual has the power of determining whether another may enter, and if so, when and for how long and under what conditions. 30. I therefore nd Petitioner’s fundamental rights to privacy and human dignity have been violated by publishing his image without his Express Consent. 31. On the issue as to whether the Petitioner’s intellectual property rights were infringed by so doing, I nd that it is not clear how the Petitioner’s intellectual property rights were violated. 32. Intellectual property is the result of creativity, such as patents, copyright, trademarks and so forth. In the current case I nd that it was the personality rights of the petitioner that were violated. 33. In NWR & another v Green Sports Africa Ltd & 4 Others [2017] eKLR Nairobi Constitutional Petition 343 of 2016 it was held that; Personality rights encompass the exclusive right of an individual to market, control and prot from the commercial use of his/her name, image, likeness and persona. The distinctive characteristics of one’s image, likeness or persona include but are not limited to name, face, body or recognizable body part, voice or voice impersonation, photograph, look-alike, signature phrase, paraphernalia or action, costume or personals signature……. The right of kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/251166/ 4